Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Elephant

Kakafika's page

Goblin Squad Member. 630 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 630 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Andius the Afflicted wrote:
3. Edit Function - Will we able to edit posts? How long after they are posted can we edit them?

I hope they allow unlimited editing of OPs, so recruitment and information threads don't need to be constantly re-posted as things change =)

Goblin Squad Member

I agree with you your goal completely, Guurzak. Here's how I've been thinking about fast travel in PFO (besides thinking along the same lines as the above posters):

The geography is such that there are only a handful of chokepoints at which to access another 'elevation,' which increases the number of hexes needed to travel to reach a destination. It also potentially increases the risk of bumping into bandits.

Bandits will be able to Ambush people out of Fast Travel (this used to be a function of the now defunct hideout structure, but I think bandits can still do this). I also seem to remember mention of NPC monsters from nearby escalations possibly being able to do the same, but I could be wrong there (in which case, add it, GW! Another good reason to have a strong force of PvEers in your settlement: clear escalations from major highways!)

I hope there will be ways for settlements and/or POIs to affect fast travel in their areas.

Goblin Squad Member

That write-up is sexy.

I have come to hold many of you in high regard, and wish Ozem's Vigil the best of luck in the Land Rush!

Goblin Squad Member

I hadn't even considered the possibility that DT's might not be in on day 1.

Goblin Squad Member

FMS Quietus wrote:

I never defined what the two large groups are. I would never suggest that members of either group all felt the same way and never suggested as such.

I will say that there is no settlement or company that I'm aware of that is a part of both the Northern Coalition and the Accord. There was and still is an 'Us vs Them' mentality on both sides. I know this because we have found ourselves at times caught in the middle of that very situation. That is what I'm commenting on and this is from personal experience.

Now to your second and most offensive comment. You challenge Ozem's Vigil as being independent. I challenge you to tell me what we have done to 'drag Pax's rhetoric in here.' I want specifics on what I said in that quote above that in anyway is "Pax's rhetoric."

Rhetoric btw has a negative connotation.
Here's the definition for you:
: language that is intended to influence people and that may not be honest or reasonable.
here's the link
Your question about our independence by saying "if" and using the word "rhetoric" already tells me about your preconceived biased outlook and why you probably "cringed" to respond.

But continuing on...you ask that we could demonstrate it?
How about this. We have nothing to prove to you.

Instead, how about you demonstrate something to me and have the Accord offer an olive branch out to Aeternum and Golgotha. Ask them to join your Accord.

You want to say there isn't an "Us VS Them" mentality? Prove it.

It would make the rest of us that are independent...yes...really independent...lives a lot easier in dealing with negotiations on future settlements.

I'm over the drama and done playing.

And for the record - reading your reply was just as cringing, so consider us even.

*DE-ESCALATION, ENGAGED*

I am not going to respond, because you already know that I was referring to T7V vs Pax as the 'rhetoric' I thought you brought in here (and yes I did use the word purposefully). There was a time of confusion when some believed the issue was simply a political battle between 2 large groups; I just wanted to point out that the evidence out there is to the contrary.

We do not want to derail this perfectly fine thread by bringing up the thread that shall not be named, right?

Like I said, I tried to keep the drama level low in my posts, but I anticipated a flare-up =/ Sorry for my part in dredging this up, all!

Editted to be better...

Goblin Squad Member

Ok so now I see my problem, after realizing which settlement icon was for Thod's friends... I actually thought the Emerald Spire was located in the strange swamplands between Z and Y!

I see now the 7 plains hexes between Golgotha and Thod's Friends must be the Emerald Spire. Thanks for clearing that up for me, sorry! Carry on...

Goblin Squad Member

I think you bring up some important points to think on, Calidor. I especially agree that the first impression is a big deal. I think I've only ever seen 2 reviews for MMOs after they have had some patches, and I didn't end up buying the games despite my interest because my buddies had already shunned them.

This quote gives me a lot of hope:

Ryan Dancey wrote:
I think that if I had seen Rust before we planned Pathfinder Online we might have risked a much more minimum game than we did. As it is, we're still pretty "minimum" compared to what most people think of when they think of an MMO, but there's a pretty robust game in there already. It's a long way more complex than Rust.

Of course, as you said (along with Morbis in the quoted thread), the subscription model adds another element to the equation.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford of Fidelis wrote:
Kakafika wrote:

Indeed. I tried to keep my post short!

Like I said in my post, which you took care to quote, many people from T7V were 'pro-Golgotha,' so I find it difficult to perceive it as T7V vs. Golgotha.

The only large group that all came out on one side of the issue was Pax. Pax Aeternum, Golgotha, and Fidelis. As I said, those weren't the only people that held that position.

EDIT: And of course there were numerous people from all groups, large and small, that simply didn't voice their opinions, feeling it wasn't worth getting tangled up in the situation =P

First, sorry if my post came off as poking anyone in the eye; I certainly didn't and don't mean any harm by it. I should have phrased it as a question to Kakafika, because it's obvious now that I misread his post.

I assumed your first sentence meant something you didn't mean by it by parsing it differently than intended. I read it as "one large group on one side vs. many persons from diverse small groups on the other", and I thought by that you were saying the argument was Pax against the rest of the community. With your explanation it's obvious that is not what was meant. No harm no foul, as they say.

I tried my darnedest not to post during all the arguments except to throw in some levity. Believe me, I had at least a dozen rather heated posts that I deleted before submitting when I realized they would do nothing but add fuel to the fire.

I didn't see it that way; no worries. And I was doing likewise; simply trying to block the eye poke (scroll down to the first photo) =P

I was cringing while posting what I did because I was anticipating some would read what they expected to see and not what I wanted to communicate. I actually breathed a sigh of relief when I saw Morbis's post (before he edited to address mine). I recognize I should have made it clearer for those that specifically avoided that thread that Pax had non-Pax support; anybody that didn't avoid that thread certainly came away from it seeing that it was a very divisive subject for the community.

Goblin Squad Member

If I'm not mistaken, that's swampland around the Spire, rather than plains. It may be portrayed differently in the PnP materials, I haven't taken a look yet =)

Goblin Squad Member

Indeed. I tried to keep my post short!

Like I said in my post, which you took care to quote, many people from T7V were 'pro-Golgotha,' so I find it difficult to perceive it as T7V vs. Golgotha.

The only large group that all came out on one side of the issue was Pax. Pax Aeternum, Golgotha, and Fidelis. As I said, those weren't the only people that held that position.

EDIT: And of course there were numerous people from all groups, large and small, that simply didn't voice their opinions, feeling it wasn't worth getting tangled up in the situation =P

Goblin Squad Member

It is my understanding that you begin using your Kickstarter play time when you activate your account to enter the world. I believe this was stated several times in various places, but unfortunately it was so long ago I can't remember where =P

So for me, depending on how Alpha looks at the end, I may wait a few months until more of the systems that I'm interested in have entered the game

EDIT: That's what I get for leaving my browser open for 13 minutes before responding ><

Goblin Squad Member

Lam wrote:
Putting name or other words with a crafted item is not minimum viable product and has resource and complexity issues. Look to be much later and may involve store. As an example, could more than one person use same label? How much more to have unique or sole user of a label?

Hmm, yeah maybe naming an item should be a store item. A player could purchase the ability to rename an item and send the name they want in for approval. That way they could charge $1 or w/e to cover the costs of having a goblin browse through a list of suggested names once a day to 'ok' them. Of course, a player should thread their named items to avoid losing them =)

Goblin Squad Member

Am I The Only One? wrote:
It isn't these guys?

aaaaahhhahahahahaha

thanks for sharing that. wonderfully absurd

Goblin Squad Member

FMS Quietus wrote:
Two large groups having a spat does not equate to the whole community. I agree with you about drama and not having time for it. Ozem's Vigil is the ONLY settlement in the top ten that's independent. We stand firm in our independence and will form alliances on a case by case basis per settlement for now. More groups have stepped forward as well with the same stance. I'm happy to see this because it starts to tear down the Us vs Them mentality that's been prevalent of late.

It was not two large groups, it was one large group and many persons from diverse groups, a handful of which were from another large group... a group from which many other members held an opposing view.

If Ozem's Vigil is independent, you could demonstrate it by not dragging Pax's rhetoric in here.

I'm making this short and sweet because I'm cringing posting this almost as much as when I read the above quote ><

Goblin Squad Member

Congrats Green Mountain Militia and Elkhaven, and good luck in the land rush... though it seems you won't be needing it =)

Goblin Squad Member

I really see no reason to punish the low-rep characters further by allowing anybody to attack them without consequence.

I think that those that want to dish out cold vengeance should resign themselves to not being the most reputable pinnacles of law and goodness.

We have an alignment system and a reputation system, let them work .

Goblin Squad Member

Phaeros will be poorer for losing you, but I wish you the best in the Land Rush!

Goblin Squad Member

Welcome, Bonny!

Goblin Squad Member

Every open PvP MMO I'm aware of has RPKing without many/any limits. In my mind, PFO is different from ALL of the rest in that it is making a reduction of RPKing a core principle of the game (rather than attempting it and mostly failing, as some have done).

Note that I like RPKing; I've just resigned myself to accepting that it is being limited in PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

Nightdrifter wrote:
(unless you have an alpha invite to give away ;)

It begins!

For anybody giving out alpha invites, my skills are:

Can trample foes.

Can eat lots of plants.

Hmm... maybe I need to work on some new skills...

Goblin Squad Member

BurnHavoc, I feel for you man, but I just don't think GW is going to give up on the rep mechanic. It's a central part of their plan to reduce Random Player Killing.

We're not sure how much RPKing will be tolerated yet. The point at which a player is deemed a low-rep murder hobo may be 1 unsanctioned kill per hour/day/week.

That said, I don't think it will be hard to find somebody that you can kill without rep penalties. There are: Criminals, Bounties, Feuds, Wars, Factional hostilities, Voluntary PvP flags, and SADs (I thought if they refuse there is no rep loss to killing?) for instance.

I think the sort of PvP GW is trying to encourage is settlement vs settlement rather than player vs randomplayer.

EDIT: Ninja'd =(

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Take that bull&%*# elsewhere. I have a steak in this Company, so don't be surprised by my leathery response.

It would behoove you to think twice before churning out more of those cheesy puns.

What's your beef with us, anyway?

EDIT: Yup, our forums are still down.

Goblin Squad Member

-_-

Goblin Squad Member

We're glad to have you guys!

Goblin Squad Member

Welcome to new signatory ispq and The Iron Gauntlet!

I look forward to visiting your bastion of justice and commerce during EE =)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nihimon hasn't forced any Roseblood Accord or T7V member into any action, nor can any member do the same to him.

This is obvious to anybody genuinely interested in the truth; look back at all the friends of Nihimon that publicly posted their disagreements with him in this and other threads, sometimes very passionate disagreements.

The UNC withdrew their application willingly when they realized they would not be able to extort money from members in exchange for not raiding their caravans; stop pretending to be wounded. The 'extra' questions asked of you were necessary, apparently, because the UNC did not have the same idea of what the Accord is as every member then and since. That was the fear when the questions were asked, and it turns out that fear was justified.

Please, stop trying to manufacture and dredge up events long past.

Please ignore Xeen with extreme prejudice. He has a reputation.

Goblin Squad Member

We're glad to have your interest!

Goblin Squad Member

Gabriel Mobius wrote:

I'm more than a little curious to see how the reputation system and force-locking people out of character advancement is going to go. Because from what I'm seeing, the reputation and alignment system seem to be heavily geared towards forcing people to play a certain way. While this is all well and good, it seems like it could also be better served by just locking everyone down to only being able to PvP in stringent circumstances. Why allow for open PvP while (to me) over-harshly punishing random attacks?

It feels a lot like they want to have the experience of emergent open PvP games, while also stripping away the very freedoms that make these possible. I can't predict exactly how this will go, but my current impressions are 'not well'.

I prefer heavy penalties to flat restrictions because then, if somebody is really douchey, I have the chance to decide whether the penalty is worth it.

Goblin Squad Member

JDNYC wrote:
TEO Papaver wrote:

@JDNYC, Kakafika:

Sure, yet only Nihimon is responsible for his actions.

Everyone is responsible for their own actions.

The Umbridge link was meant as a joke because of what the character represents and honestly Nihimon's posts kind of come off that way to me in the forums lately. If he sees it as a personal attack, I will remove the link immediately.

I actually thought it was pretty funny =P

You've said enough to attempt to calm the situation that I didn't assume malicious intent

Goblin Squad Member

But GW specifically said they can't and won't enforce rule #1, that it is up to the community to form their opinions on it and take action to correct it.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Papaver wrote:
Saiph the Fallen wrote:
...Nihimon's good name...

I'm the only one responsible for how "good" people perceive my name to be.

Pax is the only one responsible for how "good" people perceive Pax's name to be.

Nihimon is the only one responsible for how "good" people perceive Nihimon's name to be.

Assuming anything else is always an attempt to avoid responsibility. If I ever assume that people don't take me seriously because anything else then me having messed up then i'm the jerk.

Wrong. Nihimon has a part in it, but nearly ALL of the responsibility of how a person views Nihimon is on that person.

Goblin Squad Member

Gol PotatoMcWhiskey wrote:

@Saiph

And yet, despite us not engaging in Nihimons crusade against us he continued to lobby for our removal from the landrush board despite us dealing with all issues the community had.

The very SECOND we responded to the correct community issues Nihimon completely changed his tune and started attacking us.

Please, don't get involved unless you can back your s!!# up.

[Edit: Quoted wrong person]

Golgotha still hasn't dealt with all the issues the community had.

Really, all the posts from Pax, one after another, suggest that there is no issue and therefore Nihimon must have nefarious purposes. This is patently untrue.

Own up that not everybody thinks what you're doing is right. Quite attacking people for having a different opinion than you.

Goblin Squad Member

It seems like you're trying to recreate an old controversy that was already resolved =P

It's a simple question, with a simple answer.

Goblin Squad Member

Bludd, the post I linked (and others in this thread) seem to confirm that you expected payment in order to not attack other Roseblood Accord members.

Is this no longer the case?

Goblin Squad Member

"The Goodfellow" wrote:

@darcnes, As wexel has said, since he seams to have a good understanding of what the UNC stands for and desires, we as players want to promote positive game play and also meaningful game play. However, since this accord has 2 "requirements" to join and the other being mutual success, the ONLY way I see that working with our in-game characters would be a contract where we get paid to work for you. In that case, it would be mutually beneficial as we get paid and you get both protection and immunity from our attacks for a while. However, this would never be done on a constant bases, though contracts could be renewed if they are still beneficial to both parties.

If this is acceptable, then we think we can still hold a place within this accord. If this is not acceptable, then perhaps we share a common goal, but have different views as to how to reach it. If this is the case, we remain in our same mindset as before, we hold no grudge and no reserve towards anyone, group or individual. We still will promote positive game play and will enjoy being your content as much as you will be ours.

Yeah, I thought this was why UNC didn't join?

Goblin Squad Member

Basically what has been already said.

As a kingdom expands, it becomes harder and harder to expand. I'm not entirely sure, but it could be that either:

There is a hardcap to how big a settlement can get or
A kingdom can expand infinitely, but after a certain point it is functionally no longer expanding (like, say, it's technically expanding at a rate of 1 POI in 2 years).

At that point, politics with other nations comes into play in order to strengthen your player faction.

Goblin Squad Member

We know Pax doesn't think so, but not a few people believe Pax was and/or is still breaking the rules (knowingly, even), depending on their opinion.

That aside, I don't see any point in publicly debating any potential rule breaking further. Pax has made their position clear; nothing else will come of further public debate.

Nihimon has more apology posts on this forum than anybody else, I think. He's a good guy like that. He doesn't have a problem evaluating his behavior after the fact. Given the chance, he will own up to his mistakes.

Goblin Squad Member

Hmm, I can see how that quote from Morbis could be misunderstood.

I was under the impression that Morbis was saying "Golgotha has lost 3 votes from Golgotha members that voted for Aeternum in Land Rush 1" rather than "Golgotha is losing 3 votes now as we move the votes rightfully to Aeternum"

The fact that I and others consider that quote as the exact opposite of what Nihimon was saying lends itself to Nihimon making a mistake, not slandering Pax.

Nihimon would have to be stupid to publicly make a statement that he knew to be false and then include the quote that says the exact opposite in that statement. Nihimon is not stupid and he is not a slanderer; he has made the mistake of posting his suspicion as fact.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
(numbers on the poll compared to their rosters)
So people who don't belong to any guild and don't want to belong to one are not allowed to cast our votes for other settlements? I thought that was specifically what we are supposed to do if we hope to make our home in a settlement, even if we aren't part of the guild (or interested in being so) that is sponsoring in the landrush?

Nihimon lists the 3 rules in his post. Pax broke the third, then stopped breaking it. Whether they broke the first depends on if you feel Pax is one guild.

Goblin Squad Member

RHMG Animator wrote:

Look,

The ONES who will Decide if it is a violation of the RULES IS Ryan and Company, NO ONE ELSE. They have the final and ending say in this matter.

No, it is for each of us to decide for ourselves.

Goblin Squad Member

Saint Caleth wrote:

I would have agreed that his intentions were obvious right up until the point when he started beating the "Pax is one guild" horse again after Golgotha had rectified the irregular votes. If that were not bad enough I would say that the fact that he moved all the b~+##%~@ into this thread after the other one was locked moves this beyond community anything and into "crusade" territory.

As far as I am concerned he has lost the ability to say he speaks for the standards of the community, as opposed to just being another ego knocking around these boards while we all wait for the game.

I wouldn't be surprised if others had changed their mind after Pax's handling of the other, seperate, resolved issue.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Monty Wolf wrote:

If individuals that have signed up to the Roseblood accord label other individuals and entire gaming groups as cheaters without any basis in fact, what will happen to them?

Members of Taur-im-Duinath, Hammerfall, Forgeholm, Dagedai Alliance, Magistry, Keepers of the Circle, The Seventh Veil and The Empyrean Order, what will you do about Nihimon and Decius who continually label all Pax members as cheaters using statements that have repeatedly been shown to either be incorrect or lies?

I think it's easy to mistake you as a troll because you seem to not accept that somebody can have a different opinion than you. Trolls usually do that, they ignore what people are saying and make inflammatory remarks.

Goblin Squad Member

Hmm, I can see how that quote from Morbis could be misunderstood.

Nihimon, I was under the impression that Morbis was saying "Golgotha has lost 3 votes from Golgotha members that voted for Aeternum in Land Rush 1" rather than "Golgotha is losing 3 votes now as we move the votes rightfully to Aeternum"

Judging from their recent statements, that is indeed what they meant =)

EDIT: And as the only evidence of wrongdoing is a quote that could be understood either way... I'm not sure there's enough to go on for a public accusation.

Goblin Squad Member

Banesama,

more like LAMEsama!

am i closer?

Goblin Squad Member

Great.

Another wolf on the internet posting about wolf problems in a people forum.

Can we get a mod to lock this, please?

Goblin Squad Member

Nobody expects it to. I don't know why you keep saying that

Goblin Squad Member

Can we perhaps wait more than 3 minutes between demands that Nihimon clarify his statement? It took me 2 seconds to click his name and see that the post in question was his latest post, and that was 2 hours ago. It's likely he's out with his family on Friday night or something.

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah, I joined T7V because of the focus on letting players be, when the few other organizations tended towards a less democratic leadership structure and a focus on the membership working for the good of the whole. When I first saw the Roseblood Accord (one of the first things I saw when I came back to the forum), I was wholly against it. I did some research before posting my concerns too loudly and I was satisfied with the result:

It seems to me that the Roseblood Accord is simply a bunch of individual member groups that hope to foster a certain style of play in their areas. They believe that this style of play is important to the enjoyment of their membership, and will help other members have fun. I don't think that precludes warring on each other, or necessitates common defense.

So, joining the Roseblood Accord through T7V doesn't change anything about my experience in T7V, because T7V was already planning on adhering to this principle. T7V will still do what T7V wants to do, like every other member of the Roseblood Accord.

Also please note that my personal views of PvP are such that I would be completely comfortable in a group like UNC... Those who remember my posts from long ago when the PvP debate was raging will remember that I was almost uniformly against further restrictions/penalties on PvP/RPKing.

I simply joined T7V when I did because I respected the people that first joined it (and I am happy to say that we continue to recruit the same caliber members and allies!).

Again, my opinion on what the Accord is should be highly discounted if anybody posts differently, because I was simply thrown into this as a member of T7V and have not had any discussion about this with anybody, except having read this thread =P

Goblin Squad Member

Monty Wolf wrote:
<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:
Monty Wolf wrote:

Since this is posted by the op of this thread and this is the official Roseblood accord thread, I take it Pax is being called out as not playing to the standards required by the accord?

Ok. My apologies if you are being genuine, you did not deserve to be called a troll if that is the case.

Unfortunately I can't answer your question, since I'm not Nihimon. I am fairly confident however that his post has nothing to do with the Accord, and even if it did, no one else in the Accord has any obligation to agree with him or support his opinion. Like I said, I do not agree with everything he said, and I do not think he will cast me down as the enemy for saying so.
Edit: However your continued 1-liner smartass comments don't help your claim that you aren't a troll.
Thanks. I am being genuine. While I am an UNC member, I (and others in the UNC) promote positive gameplay, especially no griefing. We are unable to sign up to the accord because of the 'no preying on members' caveat that inhibits the bandit style of play. I am however interested to see what the results are of all this.

Yeah, once Xeen and Bludd realized, in this thread, that their group did not share the same idea of what 'positive gameplay' is, they said "what's the point of us joining?" and stopped asking to be admitted. I think that was a pretty rational response; they would lose a lot of income by agreeing not to attack members of the RA for free... outside of the Roseblood Accord, they stand to make a pretty penny in pay-offs and banditry from it's members =P

Goblin Squad Member

Monty Wolf wrote:
Kakafika wrote:

The RA doesn't have any way of issuing a wardec.

There is no 'government' of the RA. The RA exists only insomuch as the members/leaders continue to talk to eachother on teamspeak.

We don't even have an 'Emprah!'

Members are not required to come to eachother's aid. Members are not required not to war with eachother (as far as I know, at least).

In my estimation, having never listened in on the TS chats or spoken to anybody in the RA, the only requirements are that members engage in PvP and other behaviors that are regarded as 'positive gameplay,' the general definition of which we share, and to help other members realize this goal.

That's not to say that our shared goals haven't formed strong bonds of friendship. Each individual guild will decide for themselves which other individual guilds they will support in wartime and under what circumstances.

So if one member of the accord decides another settlement has 'cheated' and not engaged in positive gameplay, would they ask the other members to engage them in war or take sanctions against them?

I don't see how that question makes any sense based on what you quoted from me. Nobody has any control over what Roseblood Accord members do. There is no governing body.

Also, I haven't seen any evidence that any Roseblood Accord member group believes that theirs is the only valid opinion of what 'positive gameplay' is; they simply share the same general idea of what it means.

Again, if a group within the Roseblood Accord wants to go to war, it's up to other individual groups to decide if they will join them. Is there something ambiguous about this that I can clarify?

1 to 50 of 630 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.